It's more than 2 or 3 games. But it depends on your income. If someone has enough money to spend on something like a GTX 1080, getting a PS4 isn't a problem.

I would say that, if you have the money to spend on getting a PS4, that you should. The exclusives are pretty good, usually. I hate having to fork over however much I have to, but I grew up with Playstation and moved to the PC platform back in 2011/2012. Not to mention that I absolutely loved The Last of Us and Uncharted. I had to get the PS4 just to get The Last of Us Part 2 and Uncharted 4. I think those games are well worth it. But obviously, I like to play everything the (triple A) industry has to offer, so games like Destiny or Red Dead Redemption usually get my money as well (AKA console exclusives).

Mass Effect Andromeda wasn't made by BioWare Edmonton. It was made by BioWare Montreal, a completely different team.

He worked for Edmonton.

It's almost like saying that Bethesda sucks because they did Wolfenstein (an amazing shooter with captivating characters and story) but somehow completely dropped the ball with Fallout 4, when in reality there's "Bethesda" the publisher, and "Bethesda" the dev team.

I don't know how biased this subreddit is, but am I the only one who thinks that people who fight over how good their PS4 is because it runs at 1080p instead of 900p is fucking ridiculous?

I will probably get a lot of shit for this, but I like to make this analogy:

*SAVAGE ALERT*

There's two waitresses. One named Microsoft and the another named Sony. You (PS4 owner) and Bob (Xbox One owner) both get your orders from Sony (You) and Microsoft (Bob).
Then when the dishes are ready, Bob gets a shit on his plate and you get a shit with some salsa leaves on top of it. You then proceed to make fun of Bob because you got a slightly better "dish" (if you can call it that).

So the point is, you didn't get a better product because the PS4 gets 10-15fps more than the Xbone does. It almost exactly the same experience.
It's not like you won't taste the shit. But while Bob only tastes the shit, you got some salsa leaves on top of it, which gives it a slight scent.

EDIT: BTW, I have no bias towards a platform. I own and play on the consoles all the time. But I prefer PC myself because it has a lot more options than all the console combined. Than that's the primary reason why I use my PC more than I use my consoles.

What he is saying makes total sense. Not the "it's not downgrading part". But he is still correct. You shouldn't compare a trailer with demo gameplays. Or screenshots, or whatever.

They had to optimize it too make it run properly. Maybe 1% of PC gaers would be able to run that game if it looked like that. There were people who were invited to play the game that said that they had around 50-60 fps on a machine with 1 or 2 Titan Xs (if I'm not mistaken) and everything turned to the max, without the NVIDIA Hairworks.

There's a difference between "I enjoy/love the game/frnachise" to "NOTHING IS BETTER THAN IT!".

I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate for this, but here we go:

IE33 simply said that Fallout 4 would be on second place, which I find to be a extremely valid point. Witcher 3 is something completely different from Witcher 2. And completely different from any other game, really. Fallout itself is different too, but it's a Fallout game. FO4 is pretty much New Vegas on steroids. The story isn't that great (mediocre) and the Side-quests are still the same "go fetch/kill something for me". Witcher 3's side quests have personality. They have character, lore, etc behind them. I found myself not wanting to skip their lines and I was genuinely "disturbed" when something happened to an NPC (AKA a peasant) in a side-quest (then again Witcher 3's side quests are the best side-quests I've seen in any video-game). That's something that I have never done in any other video-game. I tried doing that with Fallout 4, but after 50h or 60h into the game (yep, I've played too much of it already...) I seemly can't take it anymore. I even find myself wanting to skip main quests' lines sometimes (I haven't finish the main quests yet. I'm a very "do every side mission before doing the main quests" kinda player). Fallout 4 is definitely a great game. But I don't think that it would win against The Witcher 3.

Negativity? If I'm actually right, we should be speaking volumes... People can protect Ubisoft's shady business practices (we all know they have shady business practices) all they want, but in the end it will only hurt us, the consumer.

Protecting this type of behavior will only make so that they continue to do this.

To be honest, the PC version has virtually no recoil at all. This messes with balancing, mods, perks, etc., which definitely hurt the overall player experience.

I wouldn't be opposed to the PC version getting a bit more recoil. We all know that weapons like the Darkest Before were actually broken on PC because they had no recoil. Same for SMGs reigning supreme at the time, too. They had no recoil, so they were the closest thing to a shotgun (spray and pray was huge back in Y1).

The issues they are dealing with now are self inflicted from promising more than they knew they could deliver.

Not really. Star Citizen's initial scope isn't even close to being 176 Million dollars worth.

promising more than they knew they could deliver

What? The initial team was like 10 people or less, they didn't know what they could or couldn't do. They didn't even have an engine back then. They had nothing.

They knew less about what they could deliver back when the initial pitch was announced then what they do today... The technology is all there, right now. All they have to do is expand the Universe, as well as touch-up a lot of the tech.

SQ42 is almost ready for release, and they are touching-up the game as we speak (they've said it so themselves). IIRC, it's 90+% complete.

As for the Persistent Universe, they still have a lot of systems to complete, AFAIK. So that's probably where a lot of the work still has to be put forward.

I knew it was more than 4 weeks, but I wasn't 100% sure how long it was, so I just said what came to mind first, which was "around 4 weeks".

But even so. 6 weeks is doable (but I would say unacceptable for a game like Destiny since things like Raids are best experienced blindly). Good thing there will be other games we could enjoy while we wait for Destiny 2 PC.

I, for one, am really looking forward to play Death of the Outsider (Dishonored II Standalone DLC), Cuphead and Shadow of War.
It's a shame Wolfenstein II comes out three days after Destiny 2. Because I love Wolfenstein and I wanna experience both games fully...

Without Aegis, the fireteam would literally not get passed the Templar. It's the only way to get the Templar's shield down. Without it, you would just get marked for negation and be deleted from existence.

Crota's End is a bit up for debate, since the only way to defeat him is by using a Hive sword, but the Sword wielder is defeated by us, so we could say that sword belongs to us, and we would be technically correct.

As for Oryx, OP is 100% correct. The only way we defeat him is by using the Corrupted Light he had in his Throne World.

As for almost every boss, I don't necessarily agree, even though he is technically correct, as you need some kind of third party tool to take the boss' shield down. Calus literally wants us to do what we were doing, so we do defeat his challenge exactly as he wanted us to.

A guardian's specialty isn't just strength, but also cunning/intelligence. OP is specifically talking about strength, though. So he is technically correct, even though Raids aren't just about our strength.

I think I need to unsubscribe from this sub. The amount of people who complain for absolutely no reason is out of control.

I think I need to unsubscribe due to the amount of deepthroat this sub can get when it comes to Anthem. Sometimes, it almost feels like they think that everything Anthem is doing is revolutionary.

I'm obviously not saying the game is bad or not innovative, because I think it is innovative (in some aspects), and I'm most likely getting the game (I got Access Premier for it). But not everything it is doing is revolutionary, or even a good idea.

But people still protect it, even if it is a detriment to the overall experience. A lot of people are already too invested in a game they haven't even actually played... And many are blocking real, genuine questions and concerns because they don't wanna hear about it...

This sub literally feels like Destiny's sub when the vanilla D2 was about to come out. Everyone shut down any concerns (like the slot changes, time-to-kill in PvP, ability cooldowns, no random-rolls, etc.) with an influx of downvotes, and then we all know the rest. Game comes out and a month later everyone's bitching about the things they were downvoting just a month prior.

I mean... You're only hurting yourself with pre-orders. That's why people tell you not to. In reality, I don't think most people give a damn if you burn yourself or not, but if you buy into the pre-order mentality and then get burned, right ready for those "I told you so".

If a game's good at launch, you can always buy it on day one, aftrr you made sure the game is good. If the game has no information on it, especislly a Triple-A game, then you know you should wait for it, has that means review copies weren't distributed, which implies the game is bad enough that not even the developer/publisher trusts it.

Excluding the horrible, horrible performance and overall PC port, it just lacks depth in pretty much every department. The gameplay isn't great (although the gunplay is pretty good, specially compared to FO3). The world could be better (it isn't bad, but it isn't really that good), nearly every mission is a copy-paste of other missions. There's little memorable main missions. The only mission I really remember is the one you raid a Vault and save Valentine. Oh, another one. The one where you walk around Kellogg's mind.

Most missions are generic, there are some decent missions, but a lot of them are just meh, really. The crafting system is fine, but I think it lacks depth as an RPG. The settlement building system are decent-to-bad in my opinion. There's not a lot of options, it is built for a controller (like the rest of the game), it doesn't adjust to the world/ground, which makes it really hard to make a believable settlement and more.

The side missions are just bad. The only side mission I kinda liked was the one where you dress as The Silver Shroud. Going back to the world, I think it lacks depth as well. It could be a lot more detailed. Enemies are good, but I won't give a point to the game for that because they're well established enemies that are here since the very beginning of the franchise. The factions are all pretty shitty except for The Railroad and The Institute. The Minute-Man are boring and the only thing they do (AKA you do for them) is save settlements. The Brotherhood of Steel is the exact opposite of it. They tell you to go to those settlements are order the settlers to give the BoS resources willingly, or they will forcefully take it from them... The Railroad had decent, varied missions which tied into their lore, so that's why I pretty much only like them (and the Institute because it is a secret thing and I think it is a cool faction with nice lore behind it.

As for the story. I don't think it is that good. Again, I think it is just decent. I saw the plot a mile away, but I've talked with some friends who've also played the game and they said they didn't see it coming, so I guess it was just me. But I liked the reason as to why The Institute wanted Shaun.

So that's "all" I can remember. All of that on top of the continuous "fuck you" from Bethesda to PC players just pushed me over the edge. It is literally on the top 3 worst PC support I've experienced from a triple A title in my entire life.